Posts by FatMax

I just don't think the FDR, LBJ, Obama programs of spreading the plunder would have had a chance without the 17th.

Nor would anything which stripped state sovereignty. One could argue that the entire Twentieth Century would have turned out much differently regarding domestic policy and the effect it had on economics.

My very simple theory is that state legislatures would elect senators according to their party makeup. Utah, with 80-plus percent Republican control would likely elect two Republican senators. Hawaii, with 90-plus percent Democrat would likely elect two Democrat senators. Iowa, with a 50% split in the state legislature would elect one senator from each party. My post, which includes data and maps showing the current senate makeup and what the likely makeup would be following a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment is here: http://victoryinstitute.net/wethepeople/archives/15 Although quite simple, my analysis is that Democrats would lose 12 seats to the Republicans. That is because state legislatures have quite a bit more R's than D's.

Interesting how the sky is the limit as far as the Left is concerned, but there seems to be nothing but defeatism when it comes to anything difficult for the Right. And they don’t even have the Constitution on their side!

Of course the repeal won’t move forward right away. The Seventeenth Amendment wasn’t introduced and ratified overnight, either. What has to happen is a national discussion on state sovereignty and the original intent of the Constitution. The only reason this amendment worked was because they did so under the veil of democracy (we are a republic, not a democracy) and the public knew little of federalism or the effect such an amendment would have on state sovereignty and individual liberty.

Oh, he’s shrewd when it comes to politicking - I’ll give him that. But his principles are not what our republic needs to survive. As you mentioned, Rove would rather hand the election to the Democrats than see the Republicans advance a candidate that he doesn’t support.

When our government threatens to shut down meat inspections, TSA security at airports, and other services, that is economic terrorism and we should be fire every member of the legislative and executive branch.

Nearly every American citizen has learned to do with significantly less than what we had last year, the year before that, and so on. Why is it those in Washington can't do with two measly percent less, which is what the sequester (which was Obama's plan to start with) would carve out of the federal budget?

Since you have addressed all points that myself and others have presented in such an effective manner, now tell me your plan to curb the last remaining bits of corruption and restore liberty and prosperity since ratifying the 17th Amendment was such a great thing for our society.

Again, with the fallacies? Building a racist strawman to knock down isn’t helping your cause. And history is on history’s side, not yours or any one else’s; cherry-picking information and rewriting it to fit your preconceptions isn’t solving anything.

And maybe it is fantasyland to want a society with individual liberty and prosperity protected by limited, but effective, government. But folks probably said the same thing to the Founding Fathers, and you are now free to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Again, when your points of what YOU believe will occur if the 17th is repealed run smack into the points of the actual political realities of the present, you get upset and stomp off. I have reviewed the proposals presented by your side earnestly, and Im telling you they will do nothing to stop the present course of action in DC, but will, in fact, make things even worse. That you have this blind trust in state legislators as paragons of virtue to restore the Republic to the framers intent is appallingly naive.

So things will get worse, just because you say so? No one is stomping off - this is a good discussion - and the debate is certainly not over, as you have proclaimed.

This isn't 1913 all over again; we have 100 years of history to learn from. I don't trust anyone voting for me that isn't accountable for their decisions. Go to Wal-Mart - under direct democracy, those wonderful individuals (quite likely a great portion of whom are paying for their goods with YOUR money) are the ones selecting your senators. Are they going to care that the decisions your senators make in Washington has a negative effect on your liberties and prosperity? No - because it isn't going to directly affect them. Go ahead and raise taxes. Go ahead and send troops to Syria, Libya, and Uganda. They don't pay taxes, don't serve in the military, don't own a business, and don't ever have to wonder bow they are going to pay for their healthcare or where there next paycheck is coming from.

On the other hand, state legislators (typically) care primarily about getting elected, then about getting re-elected, then gaining and growing their political power. This is constant throughout human history. But unlike U.S. senators, state legislators LIVE with the people they represent. You regularly see them at community functions, restaurants, the store, etc. How often have you ever met your U.S. senator? Probably never, because they don't work for you or the state; they work for the federal government.

By amending the Constitution, we opened the gates of Senate corruption from a largely individual and relatively local scale to a massive national and international scale. Of course there was plenty of corruption prior to the amendment, but on a much smaller scale and removed any state representation from the federal government.

It all comes down to accountability; the indigent members of society aren't accountable for their actions, so they are free to vote for politicians that may be corrupt, but they are offering "free" stuff (that their opponents will allegedly take away) if only they are elected. Meanwhile, state legislatures are still corruptible, but are more accountable because their power and re-election chances are at stake. If irresponsible people or corruptible politicians don't have consequences for their actions, then they will go about as far as they can get away with. All we need to do is find the best path forward to fix corruption and restore the rule of law. The Founders undoubtedly had corruption and an ignorant/apathetic/destructive population in mind when they wrote and approved the Constitution.

We are a democratic constitutional republic, which means that millions of ordinary Americans are able to directly vote on all sorts of matters across the country, whether it's recalling governors, passing propositions in Califoria to cut off goodies for illegal aliens and preserve traditional marriage, amending state constitutions, throwing out bad Congressman and Senators, removing judges, electing delegates to national party conventions, and abolishing state agencies. If the founders wanted to PREVENT this from having and create a "Republic, not a democracy", they would have created a North Korean style government where the politicians appoint whoever they want to serve in the federal government and the citizens have absolutely no say whatsoever in the process. If you think that system is preferable, you are welcome to move to such a country.

Words have meanings - you aren't helping your argument by making up your own definitions. I have never heard of a democratic constitutional republic, and the United States certainly isn't one. And it is absurd to suggest that by wanting to return to the original intent that we are wanting to turn our country into North Korea.

Democracy can strip a man's rights just as easy as a king. That is why the Founders created a federalist system of checks and balances and shared power between the federal and state government, with divided, enumerated powers for each.

Your staunch opposition of the repeal - full of logical fallacies, an absence of reason, and plenty of emotional elitism - has led me to the conclusion that you are happy with the current situation. Is that the case?

You may portray senators - prior to the 17th Amendment’s passage - as corrupt elitists, but you ignore or chose not to address the fact that since today’s senators are elected by the people that they are somehow less corrupt. Throughout 5,000 years of human history, politicians have proven themselves to be corrupt elitists. Instead of halting corruption, the 17th Amendment opened the door to far more corruption. Once the states no longer had representation and U.S. senators no longer had to answer to the states, the size of the federal government exploded and the budget grew exponentially.

Words like democracy sound wonderful and from a psychological aspect are quite effective (although misleading in this case), but we now have 100 years of history to examine. The 17th Amendment is not a suicide pact and should be re-examined to determine whether it is the best path forward for a more prosperous society.

Regarding democracy, I think you are assuming that citizens will vote according to what is constitutional and what is best for society. Look around - that clearly is not the case. Many millions of Americans sit around doing nothing while a shrinking number of taxpayers subsidize their existence.

Most of these no- or low-information voters have no clue about constitutional issues, economics, treaties, national security, and so on; and only vote based on their own personal and immediate interests.

When a society has a significant percentage of voters that don’t know or don’t care what happens to anyone else, they vote for politicians that won’t follow the laws that govern our society. Remember, true democracy is a group of wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner... that is what is occurring politically today.

That is why we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy - because the Founders wanted to prevent THIS from happening.

Thanks for pointing that out; I thought it was a typo or something. I would like to see a national discussion on a lot of things, the ratio of citizens to elected officials in the House being one of them.

If we're going to get a corrupt Senate either way, I'd far prefer a corrupt Senate on the side of the states than a corrupt Senate on the side of the Feds.

My point exactly. We need more checks in government, not less. Empowering the states is a good thing - that's why the Founders designed it that way. People are no more or less corrupt today than they were 5,000 years ago. Let's have a national debate on the subject and chose the best path forward.

Sure there was corruption, but look into the scale of corruption pre- and post-1913. Congress has spent so much money in the past few years that we are over $100 trillion in debt, considering unfunded liabilities. 100 years ago, the national debt was $2.9 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that’s only $65 billion in today’s dollars.

You portray the state legislators as incompetent, but I say that the U.S. would be far better off picking 535 names at random from the phone book to run Congress - much less legislators that govern states that (compared to the federal government and excluding California and Illinois) are in relatively good shape.

And the campaign in favor of direct election of senators was a conspiracy - a democratic conspiracy. We aren’t a democracy, but a constitutional republic. There are democratic elements to our society, but pure democracy strips the rights of the individual just as easily as a tyrant - it’s just a matter of procedure.

Granted, by its passage, the 17th Amendment became as legitimate as the rest of the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with having a logical debate on whether the 17th Amendment is the best path forward for society.

Based on history and human nature, the amendment paved the way for corruption and special interest influence on a scale that was impossible to reach under the original system.

But when you strip the state’s ability to instantly recall U.S. senators that are not legislating in the state’s interests, you undermine the federalist system of shared powers between the state and federal government, and essentially create a new - and more corruptible - government.

And it’s “As one WHO has...” not “As one WHOM has...” If you’re going to insult the author, at least use proper grammar.

According to the theory, 67% and above would be sufficient for the entire delegation to be from the majority party. California has 66.3%. While California would likely be represented by one senator from each party, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the Democrat would be liberal and the Republican would be a moderate.

But it’s an educated guess, not precise political analysis. Even if the Republicans were only able to swing half of the states where they have reasonably sufficient support (according to the state legislatures) and we err on the side of the Democrats - which wouldn’t be too much of a stretch considering the inability of Republican leadership to stand on principles or oppose Democrat policies - the Republicans still gain control of the Senate.

You’re apparently unable to understand the point. The more control the majority party has, the more likely it is for that state to appoint members from the majority party. Republicans pick up more seats because they have more control in the state legislatures.

Who is more corrupt, the state legislatures, who can only spend their own state’s money, many of which have balanced budget amendments, and cannot print money; or the current system that has failed to do their constitutional duty regarding a budget, is bankrupting the entire nation, stripping U.S. sovereignty, and can spend trillions of dollars?

Corruption is everywhere in politics - the job attracts highly corruptible people. But the best government is local, and the founders built a federalist system for a reason. If you have a corrupt state, you can always move to another state, and the state with the better system will prosper while the state making poor choices will suffer from the loss of taxpayers. But when the corruption is at the federal level, you can’t move to another United States.

The states created the federal government - not the other way around. Are you suggesting states should no longer have ANY voice in Washington?

I think it will have to be an insurgency campaign. Several “Tea Party” senate candidates support the repeal. Zell Miller, a former Marine and perhaps the last conservative Democrat, supported it. We citizens must drive this forward.

General Charles Napier when dealing with sutte, the Indian custom of burning a widow on her husbands funeral pyre: You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

Excellent point. I have used that as a reference to Afghanistan in the past, but never knew the general's name.

Mentioned the Afghan pilot in the article. Killed eight US troops, a US contractor. Seems like they whitewash these attacks when they went public in the past, like the jihadist attack on Ft. Hood by Army Maj. Nidal Makil Hassan in 2009.

Having researched Agenda 21 for years, I am glad to see that it has moved from tinfoil hat conspiracy territory to legitimate threat. So much so that a top-tier candidate is mentioning it. If only the threat was considered legitimate when it was signed nearly two decades ago.

What business is it of any person or group to dictate how many people are to be allowed to live on the planet? The number of people on the planet doesn’t have as much of an impact as the behavior of those people. We just have to live sensibly, and our economies don’t have to be destroyed and our liberties sacrificed to corrupt, power hungry people in order to do so.

Media’s backs are up against the wall. They have been thoroughly exposed as propagandists and have abandoned all journalistic integrity. These debates are nothing more than an attempt to weaken the Republican candidate since the Obama administration has nothing positive to run on besides a phony narrative.

Obama has a crack team of lawyers to consider the Constitution and the law for him. They just have to find clever ways to get around it, such as defying the War Powers Act in Libya and scores of other examples.

There are certainly a lot of missing records. I think they are not released because (one) they will expose Obama’s socialist past and positions and (two) keeping them hidden allows his opponents - such as those seeking definitive proof of his citizenship - to be marginalized.

It’s obvious that Fast and Furious was intended to pave the way for gun control legislation - maybe the UN Arms Trade Treaty - but in court it’s the believability of the admissible evidence. I wonder how much damage - if any - this will do to the administration.